CHANDER BHAN Vs. MANGE RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DENIAL of permission to the plaintiff to amend the plaint warrants no interference in revision.

(2.) THE vendor in this suit for pre-emption was stated and described to be the widow of Rati Ram, the last male owner of the land in suit and a right of pre-emption was asserted by the plaintiff on her being so. It was further the case of the plaintiff that the vendor Shanti Devi had inherited this land from her husband and he being Ratti Ram's brother's son had a preferential right of pre-emption. This claim, thus, fell under S. 15 (2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (thereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.) Pre-emption was also sought under S. 15 (1) thereof on the ground of being a co-sharer of the vendor.

(3.) IT is now well-settled that where the property is inherited by a female from her father or husband, the right of pre-emption is restricted to that available under S. 15 (2) of the Act and it cannot be claimed under S. 15 (1) thereof. This was so held by the Full Bench in Kalwa v. Vasakha Singh, ILR (1982) 2 Punj and Har 118: (AIR 1982 Punj and Har 480 ). Seen in this context, the amendment sought, namely, then addition of the words "alleged to be" before the word "widow" in head-note of the plaint and the deletion of sub-para (ii) of para 3 of the plaint, whereby the right of pre-emption by virtue of the plaintiff being the husband's brother's son and the vendor Shanti Devi having inherited the land in suit from her husband was asserted, was not as innocuous as was sought to be made out. By asserting that the vendor had got this land from her husband, the plaintiff was confined to seeking a decree for pre-emption under S. 15 (2) of the Act. To this extent, it was right argued by Mr. M. L. Sarin, counsel for the respondent, that the description of the vendors as the widow of Rati Ram constituted an admission by the plaintiff, the withdrawal of which would constitute grave prejudice to the vendee-defendant. It was contended in this behalf that if the amendment prayed for was allowed, it would make available to the plaintiff a ground for pre-emption, namely that of being a co-sharer, which otherwise stood barred. Reference here was made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ladha Ram and Co. , AIR 1977 SC 680, for the proposition that no amendment can be permitted which completely displaces the opposite party from the admissions made in the pleadings.